Comments on: Cheap? Who You Callin’ Cheap?

By: Masticore317

Masticore317 — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:33:49 +0000

Luna does play a capable SS as well as OF.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:18:06 +0000

20: The draft budget should be completely separate from the major league payroll. When you draft and sign a player you control him for a long time. The theoretical maximum is 12 years, but most players have no chance to leave the drafting club for 8-9. It’s an investment.

2006 draft bonuses:

Padres - 4.7 million
Red Sox - 8.4 million

3.7 million dollars was the difference between a great draft and an okay draft. Both gaps narrow if we sign Latos. We’re not talking about huge money in major league baseball terms. More than I’ll ever make, but it’s a small % of revenues.

I think the Padres didn’t spend this winter because they didn’t find think anyone was worth it, besides those they signed. I don’t agree with that, Schmidt was worth it, but I don’t believe they were saving money for the draft. Sure hope not.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:00:05 +0000

25: Yeah. Walker and Robles are adequate backups everywhere but SS. If you could just combine Walker’s offensive skill with Blum’s “ability” to play SS, you’d have a fine backup infielder and we wouldn’t use up so many roster spots.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:32:31 +0000

24 - if he can’t play SS, it doesn’t seem like we need him … our BIGGEST hole is backup-SS … Blum seems “replacement level” at best … I’m happy with Walker as backup 2B-3B-1B …

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Masticore317

Masticore317 — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:36:05 +0000

I think we should inquire about Hector Luna...the Indians seem to be upset with him and I think he'd make a great and versitile IF backup.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: dprat

dprat — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:39:13 +0000

Ooops, make that 54% for top 10.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: dprat

dprat — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:34:19 +0000

‘Cause I just can’t throw something out there without some evidence to back it up… over the period, 2000-2006…
teams in top 10 in payroll claimed 56% of playoff spots,
middle 10 claimed 32%,
bottom 10 claimed 14%.

For that same period, the median team payroll of playoff teams was 26% higher than the median team payroll of all teams. If you compared the median of playoff teams to non-playoff teams, the difference would be greater, something over 30% easily. If you went by payroll average instead of median, the difference (thanks to that mighty outlier in the Bronx) would be still greater.

No one argues that money is the be all and end all of team success, but teams that don’t spend, only rarely contend. Spend a few million more to increase your chances? As they say in New York, “It wouldn’t hoit.”

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: dprat

dprat — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:35:50 +0000

Re: payroll…what TW said. Selig & his suits like to play up the fact that 2000-2006 has seen 7 different WS series winners, and talk about having evened the playing field via revenue sharing. Horsepoop! You can’t win the WS without making the playoffs, and I’m willing to bet there is a very statistically significant correlation between team payroll and making the playoffs over those 7 years. Once you make the dance, it is largely, as Pat puts it, a crapshoot, and with only 7 data points, it isn’t much surprise that you can’t find much correlation between payroll and WS winners.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:08:40 +0000

17 & 18: I think it’s possible the reduction for 2007 is necessary to assist with signing all those extra draft picks we stockpiled, and I’m OK with that. It’s also possible LM is right and we are saving some room for an acquisition during the year. I’m OK with that, too. Either way, reduction or no, it is a strategy, imo, to help set the team up to win, which is what it is all about.

Winning and playing competitive, quality baseball year in and year out should be the goal. Winning the WS is gravy, icing on the cake and, as TW points out, in many ways a crap shoot. I really don’t understand the “winning it all is all that matters” mentality. Of course it is the ultimate achievement and the most gratifying for both player and fan, but for the vast majority of teams, given the economic conditions in baseball, it will be a very rare occurence.

This being the case I’m very happy to be a fan of the Padres who are in the midst of a golden age in franchise history and appear to be well set up to continue their run of playing quality, competitive, winning baseball for the foreseeable future.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:29:05 +0000

mlb.com has some video highlights up already … http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com.....mp;c_id=sd … ahhh …

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)